New Formatting Proposal

[Antvasima]

Anyway, can somebody write a tally for the current staff conclusions here please?

 

[Armorchompy]

OP has a tally.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will check.

 

[Deceived3596]

Yes, but the bureaucrats should preferably be onboard with it. Acting as buffer evaluators for/potential veto users against site policy revisions is a very important part of our job here.

No one disagrees that Bureaucrats should act as a buffer towards potential harmful revisions, but the fact literally everyone else agrees with this except for two people isn't something you can hand wave away with this argument Ant.

If everyone else agrees with this addition, Don'tTalk's and AKM's opinion shouldn't trounce all the opinions of your other staff members.

It's quite literally 10 to 2 right now, 11 to 2 if you count yourself among the mods who agree with this being added.

 

[Antvasima]

So this seems to be our current staff tally then:

Agree: Sir_Ovens, Confluctor, Damage3245, Amelia_Lonelyheart, Armorchompy, UchihaSlayer96, LordTracer, SamanPatou, KLOL506, Abstractions

Disagree : DontTalkDT, AKM sama

Neutral/Doesn't mind the change: Antvasima

I have asked AKM to comment here.

 

[Antvasima]

No one disagrees that Bureaucrats should act as a buffer towards potential harmful revisions, but the fact literally everyone else agrees with this except for two people isn't something you can hand wave away with this argument Ant.

If everyone else agrees with this addition, Don'tTalk's and AKM's opinion shouldn't trounce all of the opinions of your other staff members.

It's quite literally 10 to 2 right now, 11 to 2 if you count yourself among the mods who agree with this being added.

Well, bureaucrats should definitely continue to have vetos against genuinely controversial site policy revisions, but this one does not really seem particularly controversial/potentially harmful to me after reconsidering the issue, so it is a gray area case. I am just very uncomfortable with overruling other bureaucrats, as that is a very bad precedent to set. I very much prefer if we reach staff consensuses regarding these types of issues.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, bureaucrats should definitely continue to have vetos against genuinely controversial site policy revisions, but this one does not really seem particularly controversial/potentially harmful to me after reconsidering the issue, so it is a gray area case. I am just very uncomfortable with overruling other bureaucrats, as that is a very bad precedent to set. I very much prefer if we reach staff consensuses regarding these types of issues.

Counting their votes above everyone else's sets an even worse precedent Ant. It's no less than saying to their face flat out that the votes of other people don't matter.

 

[Antvasima]

Counting their votes above everyone else's sets an even worse precedent Ant. It's no less than saying to their face flat out that the votes of other people don't matter.

They definitely do matter, and as you know, in regular content revision threads I as good as always bow to the rulings of staff with greater knowledge than I do about each area, but making site policy changes always requires a considerable amount of staff consensus in order to pass, and safeguarding the wellbeing of the wiki as a whole is one of the bureaucrats' main responsibility areas, which includes evaluating if they think said policy changes are destructive or not, and although all staff votes are obviously counted, and very appreciated and important, we still technically do have an ascending hierarchy here (along with specialisations to different areas of responsibility), so bureaucrats do have considerably more of a vote than image helpers, for example, especially when it comes to policy revisions, even though we very seldom tend to enforce it, and then as good as always only in said policy revision threads that bureaucrats and administrators are particularly responsible for.

On the flipside, with the exception of DontTalk, who used to be a calc group member, bureaucrats have no say in whether or not calculations are acceptable, so again, different specialisations and authority depending on the area.

 

[ImmortalDread]

They definitely do matter, and as you know, in regular content revision threads I as good as always bow to the rulings of staff with greater knowledge than I do about each area, but making site policy changes always requires a considerable amount of staff consensus in order to pass, and safeguarding the wellbeing of the wiki as a whole is one of the bureaucrats' main responsibility areas, which includes evaluating if they think said policy changes are destructive or not, and although all staff votes are obviously counted, and very appreciated and important, we still technically do have an ascending hierarchy here (along with specializations to different areas of responsibility), so bureaucrats do have considerably more of a vote than image helpers, for example, especially when it comes to policy revisions, even though we very seldom tend to enforce it, and then as good as always only in said policy revision threads that bureaucrats and administrators are particularly responsible for.

I have a question, if he disagrees with the thread, the suggestion will not be implemented even if 11 staff including the wiki owner agreed on it?

 

[Agnaa]

including the wiki owner

The wiki owner is not a staff member, so idk who you're referring to. If you're talking about Ant, he's neutral.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The wiki owner is not a staff member, so idk who you're referring to. If you're talking about Ant, he's neutral.

I thought Ant is wiki owner, my bad (he looks like one if you ask me)

 

[Antvasima]

I have a question, if he disagrees with the thread, the suggestion will not be implemented even if 11 staff including the wiki owner agreed on it?

There will be an overweight for accepting this, but we always require more of a staff consensus in order to accept policy revisions that affect the entire wiki, and a bureaucrat does have more voting power than a regular member concerning such issues, so I am honestly not sure what we should do if that happens. Applying a policy change is not simply about one side gathering 7 staff votes and the other one 5, so this is a rather complicated deadlock.

I hope that AKM will agree though. To me this doesn't really seem like an issue that should be considered a big deal, so I hope for the best.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought Ant is wiki owner, my bad (he looks like one if you ask me)

A close friend of mine owns this forum, but that is it.

Fandom owns the wiki. I just heavily contributed to organising its growth to around a 100 times the popularity it had when I first came here, but it would be inane and narcissistic of me to claim that it wasn't a massive group effort in which several hundreds of staff and other productive members have made massive efforts to help out with gradually improving it.

So again, it definitely wasn't even remotely just about me. I have just continuously tried to direct the work flow in constructive directions, and have handled much of the maintenance work so other people can focus on improving the reliability of our pages.

 

[ImmortalDread]

A close friend of mine owns this forum, but that is it.

Fandom owns the wiki. I just heavily contributed to organising its growth to around a 100 times the poopularity it had when I first came here, but it would be inane of me to claim that it wasn't a massive group effort in which several hundreds of staff and other productive members have made massive efforts to help out with gradually improving it.

My bad, I just had the wrong idea. If you ask me, you definitely earn the ownership due to all contributions you did in this year. This is why I thought or claimed that you are the owner of the forum.

There will be an overweight for accepting this, but we always require more of a staff consensus in order to accept policy revisions that affect the entire wiki, and a bureaucrat does have more voting power than a regular member concerning such issues, so I am honestly not sure what we should do if that happens. Applying a policy change is not simply about one side gathering 7 staff votes and the other one 5, so it is a rather complicated deadlock.

I hope that AKM will agree though. To me this doesn't really seem like an issue that should be considered a big deal, so I hope for the best.

I hope AKM and DT may understand the mobile issue that some members have addressed in this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I also hope for the best. I am very uneasy with this entire situation.

 

[AKM sama]

I hope AKM and DT may understand the mobile issue that some members have addressed in this thread.

Can you please point me to those comments?

Also, I feel like this is a rather huge issue that concerns many pages of our wiki. Only 10 or 11 staff members are not sufficient in deciding whether we should make a variation in our standard format. I feel that all of them should be pinged.

As for me, I have not expressed my views about whether the pages look good or bad in the proposed style. That is a subjective issue and it depends on the taste of a particular user.

Suppose I am on a page where the P&A section is listed as our standard format. I then jump to a page where it is listed under several tabbers. I then again jump to a page where it is listed as a list. And then another page where they are bolded.
My main concern, like I have stated before, is that having too many formats will make our pages look inconsistent and provide an overall poor user experience.

I do agree that if it's a P&A wall of text, bolding will increase readability. More so in mobile view (I'm assuming that's what Dread is referring to), and to be fair, most of our viewers are mobile users. Although, I do disagree with Damage and agree with Armor that bolding all P&A when it is not a wall of text will look bad. So that is not a solution to having too many variations.

I think these points should be noted. And if most of our staff members are fine with having the new variation, then I am not going to stand in the way of this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Can you please point me to those comments?

About the links in the references and mobile, as someone who the last months were visiting the wiki only with mobile and tablet, I can confidently say that seeing references is actually hard in those, so I generally believe would be better to not put the scans in inside them.

References in scans are apparently a very annoying thing to deal with on mobile so they're absolutely not a good solution. And yes, it's just generally annoying to use, you're pushing for a format of your own that doesn't have a tenth of the support this one has.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd also point out this:

They are not annoying to deal with on iOS; they work the same as on computers. From what I've heard, the issue with "references on mobile" is more the issue with "references on android" (or maybe only some versions of it?), which is something that should be reported to Fandom to be fixed. I would do this myself if I knew enough about the issue to report it.

They're not inherently broken, it's just a bug that needs fixing, but as far as I can tell, no-one that has complained about it has reported it yet.

And really, it's something that should be fixed anyway since we're mandating the use of references on profiles.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you please point me to those comments?

Also, I feel like this is a rather huge issue that concerns many pages of our wiki. Only 10 or 11 staff members are not sufficient in deciding whether we should make a variation in our standard format. I feel that all of them should be pinged.

As for me, I have not expressed my views about whether the pages look good or bad in the proposed style. That is a subjective issue and it depends on the taste of a particular user.

Suppose I am on a page where the P&A section is listed as our standard format. I then jump to a page where it is listed under several tabbers. I then again jump to a page where it is listed as a list. And then another page where they are bolded.
My main concern, like I have stated before, is that having too many formats will make our pages look inconsistent and provide an overall poor user experience.

I do agree that if it's a P&A wall of text, bolding will increase readability. More so in mobile view (I'm assuming that's what Dread is referring to), and to be fair, most of our viewers are mobile users. Although, I do disagree with Damage and agree with Armor that bolding all P&A when it is not a wall of text will look bad. So that is not a solution to having too many variations.

I think these points should be noted. And if most of our staff members are fine with having the new variation, then I am not going to stand in the way of this.

Thank you. This seems like a sensible approach to me.

@DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245 @Abstractions @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @The_Impress @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @MistaClean @MonkeyOfLife @FinePoint

Your input would be very appreciated here. Please disregard this message if you have already participated here and made a final decision.

 

[Eficiente]

Both are fine, if either is forced then I agree. Edit: I meant neither, my bad

 

[Therefir]

I don't really mind this new format, consistency was thrown out the window long time ago with the addition of the bullet point format, and not all profiles have to look the same.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't have issues with the bolding or the bullet-pointing (Wherever it works best), but care must be taken to not make walls of text borderline unreadable (This is more of a problem with bullet-pointed list and not so much as with merely bolding the abilities).

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Don't mind the format, people can use whatever they think is best for them.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I think the new format looks alright

 

[Jasonsith]

I stand neutral so far, but will give an opinion if I give a deeper look after my real life work.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks fine

 

[Planck69]

I have no problems with the new format. I think it's more important that profiles look readable and clean depending on their volume of content rather than uniform but that's just my opinion.

 

[Duedate8898]

New format is cool with me

 

[Armorchompy]

Both are fine, if either is forced then I agree.

We're not trying to force either, since both can look bad on specific types of profiles.

Either way Eficiente aside I believe I counted six new agreements and one new neutral?

 

[Noneless21]

We're not trying to force either, since both can look bad on specific types of profiles.

Either way Eficiente aside I believe I counted six new agreements and one new neutral?

Yes it is, I added them

also, nobody's forcing anything here, just sayin

 

[FinePoint]

I am fine with abilities being bolded on pages that are otherwise walls of text.
Bolding anything anywhere is problematic, but it can be established as a standard that if the old P&A format is used, then the powers themselves are allowed to be bolded.

I believe the benefit to walls of text outweighs the small downside of someone applying it to a smaller list where it's less suitable.

 

[AKM sama]

I think there is immense support for allowing bolding. We should wait a bit more for others and if nothing changes, we can go ahead with this.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm still against bolding for the reasons that I provided earlier.

 

[Jasonsith]

(cannot sleep well, whatever)

Well bolding some powers and mechanics may cause bias, which I am (now so think) not quite buying.

However it sure does help a lot if one power and ability that needs explanation be easily referred at the lower part of the part in explanation of notable powers, abilities, skills and arsenal. A link cross reference can be great but I am not sure this is technically practical.

If the bolding part serves as an optional practive or guide on highlighting major powers or powers that needs attention, then I will slightly lean towards neutral.

... Yeah overall I am leaning towards neutral if this bolding part is not mandatory.

 

[KLOL506]

(cannot sleep well, whatever)

Well bolding some powers and mechanics may cause bias, which I am (now so think) not quite buying.

However it sure does help a lot if one power and ability that needs explanation be easily referred at the lower part of the part in explanation of notable powers, abilities, skills and arsenal. A link cross reference can be great but I am not sure this is technically practical.

If the bolding part serves as an optional practive or guide on highlighting major powers or powers that needs attention, then I will slightly lean towards neutral.

... Yeah overall I am leaning towards neutral if this bolding part is not mandatory.

Never was supposed to be mandatory.

 

[Armorchompy]

Can we consider this enough agreement?

 

[Antvasima]

I think so, yes.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Your input would be very appreciated here. Please disregard this message if you have already participated here and made a final decision.

In my view I think bullet point lists under tabs will always be more readable than a couple back to back paragraphs of abilities. Even with bolding the powers themselves.

 

[Antvasima]

In my view I think bullet point lists under tabs will always be more readable than a couple back to back paragraphs of abilities. Even with bolding the powers themselves.

Yes, agreed, but this is about if a third option should be accepted, and it seems to have been according to most staff members here.